T SATYAVEDA KUMARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the action of the respondent in passing an order declaring the probation of the petitioner for a second time in O/o No. RT. 503/O.P.I/90, dated 20-10-1990 and consequently giving promotion to R-3 to R-6 as Asst. Section Officers in O/o No. 565/OP.I/94, dated 25-8-1994 the present W.P. is filed.

(2.) The few facts that are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are the petitioner was appointed as a typist in the office of S.E., Sri Ram Sagar Project, Design Circle, Hyderabad, on a regular basis and her probation was declared in the unit of her initial appointment. After some time she submitted a representation to the respondent herein to consider her case for. transfer at request as typist to the Legislative Secretariat. Having considered the request of the petitioner the respondent in his O/o No. 147/OP.I/86, dated 7-5-1986 agreed to take the petitioner in his department and she was appointed as typist by transfer in the Legislative Department. Para-3 of the order categorically stated "she should take the last place among the approved probationers in the category of typists in the Legislature Department". But, the appointing authority seemed to have not relieved her immediately and ultimately, she got herself relieved on 31-1-1987 and reported before the respondent on the same day. Having accepted the joining report the respondent herein issued another O/o No. 36/OP.1/87, dated 2-2-1987 to the effect that the petitioner was appointed by transfer as typist in the Legislature Department at her request with effect from 31-1-1987.

(3.) In para-2 it is stated that she is liable to be reverted to her parent department without notice and assigning any reasons. Para-3 states that she will take last place among the approved probationers in the category of typists in the Legislature Department. But, for reasons best known to him the respondent by his O/o No. RT. 503/OP.1/90, dated 20-10-1990 issued an order declaring her probation in Legislature Department as if she was discharging duties of a typist for the first time after regular appointment. Para-2 again makes it clear that she will take her place in the category of typists after one Mr. K. Balarajaiah who was admittedly the last approved probationer in that department as per the orders issued on 7-5-1986. Nothing transpired thereafter for a long time but, to the surprise of the petitioner the respondent by O/o No. 565/OP.1/94, dated 25-8-1994 promoted R-3 to R-6 who according to the petitioner are juniors to her without considering her claim for promotion. Immediately she submitted a representation bringing to the notice of the respondent that she is an approved probationer and the persons who were promoted were not even probationers on the day when she joined the department. As such she may be given promotion restoring her seniority. But, that representation was rejected by the respondent in his Memo No. 921 / OP.1/95, dated 3-8-1995 stating that her contention is deviod of merit and substance. At that time the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.